GER politics thread

[Skybird]

A stageplay.


https://www-focus-de.translate.goog/..._x_tr_pto=wapp

[Skybird]

Germany does not learn. Scholz learns nothing. But the thing he now wants to afford is really catastrophic and has the makings of high treason - which our modern law unfortunately no longer knows. FOCUS writes:
------------------------------
Despite "blackmail potential "Chancellor's office wants to push through China deal at Port of Hamburg

The Federal Chancellery is apparently planning to push through the sale of shares in Hamburg port operator HHLA to the Chinese shipping company Cosco, despite six ministries advising against it.

Despite warnings from all specialist ministries, the Chancellor's Office apparently wants to push through the sale of parts of the Port of Hamburg to a Chinese state-owned company.

According to information from NDR and WDR, all six ministries technically involved in the investment review have rejected the deal. However, according to the research, the Chancellor's Office is pushing for the deal to go through.

Chinese shipping company Cosco wants to take over shares in port operator HHLA and acquire a stake of more than one-third in Hamburg's Tollerort container terminal. Because this involves critical infrastructure, the lead Ministry of Economics had launched an investment review procedure and, according to the research, had already registered the issue for final rejection in the Federal Cabinet.

However, the Chancellor's Office had then not put the review procedure on the agenda. A cabinet decision, which is necessary for a ban, could thus not be made. Instead, according to information from NDR and WDR, the Chancellor's Office is said to have instructed the departments involved to look for a compromise so that the deal can be approved after all.

According to the research, two points in particular were cited for the rejection by the Economics, Interior, Defense, Transport and Finance Ministries as well as the Foreign Office, in addition to the changed geopolitical situation: Cosco should not only receive a purely financial stake, but should also provide a managing director and have a say in decisions. Since China is already the port's most important customer, the planned participation in the container terminal could create "blackmail potential. The EU Commission has also reportedly spoken out against it.

When asked, the Ministry of Economics merely stated that it does not comment during ongoing proceedings. A government spokesman replied that the Chancellor's Office would not comment on ongoing investment review proceedings "in view of the fact that business and trade secrets of the companies involved would be affected". Cabinet topics would be decided by meetings of state secretaries. The Chancellor's Office said that no reports would be made from these working sessions.

Rolf Langhammer of the Kiel Institute for the World Economy tells ARD's Panorama magazine (NDR), "The long-term strategy of the Chinese could of course be to seize control of the entire supply chain, digital and maritime in Europe." This could give China a competitive advantage or initiate an "abuse of economic power."

According to the information, time is pressing: if the federal cabinet does not pass a resolution and an extension of the deadline is no longer agreed, the deal would automatically come into effect according to the law. As things stand, that would be the case at the end of October - shortly before a planned visit to China by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD).

German business circles are also voicing a serious accusation: The Chinese side is said to be exerting pressure on German companies. Specifically, it is said that the embassy has recently contacted German companies directly. They should support the Chinese entry into the Port of Hamburg - otherwise there would be consequences for their own business. When asked, the Chinese embassy did not comment on the accusation, referring instead to a previous statement by the foreign office spokeswoman: It is hoped that Germany will remain true to principles such as those of the open market - instead of politicizing normal economic relations.
--------------------
So this is what it looks like when the Germans learn the lesson of their dependence from Russia, which is now exploding them right into their faces: they nestle down at China's feet to lick its soles while slurping with relish. There is a lot of talk here that "change through trade" is not working, and that finally one has gotten it. But one lives further after it. Maybe it will work later nevertheless, by magic, but one day.


Until then: always diligently kowtow.

It can only be hoped that now that the crime in the making has been made known by the media, the whole thign will be stopped somehow at the alst inute. Time is runnign out, iof they have not stopped it until end of this month (ten days!), its automatically through and valid.

BTW. Bubble-Olaf is known to be extremely sinophile, since allways, and I said that two or three times already at the beginning of the year, so this stunt indeed is run by the probably most suitable person in German politics.

How much I dispise this underhanded carricature of a man.

[Skybird]

Ah, other media - edit: now practically all national mainstream media - pick up the story. And the three coaltion party factions run increasing attacks against Scholz' underhanded plan. Lets raise steam and pressure in the kettle:

https://www-welt-de.translate.goog/p..._x_tr_pto=wapp

https://www-tagesspiegel-de.translat..._x_tr_pto=wapp

https://www-spiegel-de.translate.goo..._x_tr_pto=wapp

https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/..._x_tr_pto=wapp

What gives it all a special taste is that Bubble-Olaf was the disastrous mayor of Hamburg, is involved in a finanace scandal that has Hamburgt as one major scene of the crime, and wnats the harbour deal done shreot before he starts a travel to Bejing. How comes so much lucky coincidence into the world?

[Skybird]

Achse des Guten hin oder her - where they're right, they're right.
AdG comments:
------------------------------
Port of Hamburg: Betrayed and sold?

Hamburg wants to sell part of its port to China - and Chancellor Scholz is pushing for it. Will the mistake of depending on foreign countries, as with Nordstream, now be perpetuated? Scholz seems to want to seamlessly continue Merkel's fatal legacy.

UASC, MSC, COSCO - these abbreviations are completely familiar to Hamburgers. The letters "SC" give a clue as to what they are, they are Shipping Companies, i.e. UASC for United Arab Shipping Company based in Dubai (merged with Hapag - Lloyd AG since 2017), MSC for Mediterranean Shipping Company based in Geneva (whose Mediterranean connotation is not immediately obvious) and COSO stood for the people-owned China Ocean Shipping Company with its European headquarters in Hamburg. In 2016, COSCO and China Shipping Group merged to form China COSCO Shipping Corporation. In the same year, it was announced that COSCO would take over the port of Piraeus. And now part of the Port of Hamburg is to be sold to them.

Back in September, Business Insider ran the headline "A second Nord Stream case? Hamburg wants to sell part of its port to China - that's what's behind the bitter dispute," and asked, "Is the future viability of Germany's largest port at stake? Or is Hamburg threatened by a second Nord Stream case? Is it good to bring China into the port boat? Or would it be fatal to increase dependence on the communist authoritarian-ruled country?"

COSCO is not only a shipping company but also a logistics group, and already controls about 10 percent of European port capacity. In the case of Hamburg, it plans to sell one of the port's terminals, Tollerort, which is considered particularly efficient and innovative. COSCO intends not only to buy business shares but also to provide a managing director. Due to its strategic relevance, the intended sale must be reviewed by the German government. All six ministries involved reject it, only Chancellor Scholz wants to push it through. If the cabinet does not pass a resolution by the end of October preventing the deal, it will automatically go ahead.
U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken warned explicitly

In view of the geopolitical situation, the question arises as to what is driving the chancellor to even consider such a deal. That he is under pressure from the Chinese side is possible, but not proven. However, since German companies are said to have been put under direct pressure by the Chinese embassy and threatened with negative consequences if they do not support the takeover of the Tollerort by COSCO, influence on high-ranking politicians cannot be ruled out.

Olaf Scholz, already under pressure for various affairs, not least his controversial behavior in the Cum-Ex scandal, continues the SPD's questionable behavior regarding German security interests. Supplying Germany with gas through Nord Stream was supposed to be a purely private-sector project. With this blatant misjudgment, if it was only one, Germany entered into the dependency on Russia that has brought us into the current difficult situation. If one considers that the chancellor did not implement any of the saving measures such as extending the operating lives of nuclear power plants, ordering fuel rods, starting fracking, etc., nor did he support Ukraine quickly, sufficiently and effectively, a very alarming overall picture emerges.

If he now still wants to allow an important part of the port of Hamburg to be sold to China, although only recently U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken explicitly warned that China apparently wants to implement its invasion plans against Taiwan sooner than previously thought, then his behavior can no longer be classified as merely contradictory or hesitant. Already his predecessor Merkel, under whose aegis the Nord Stream 2 deal came about, had no problem selling us to China, as the Bild newspaper headlined. At the time, it was about Huawei. Scholz seems to want to seamlessly continue Merkel's legacy.

In any case, the interests of Germans in a life of freedom, security and prosperity are being disregarded or even counteracted. It is not surprising that a clear majority of Germans no longer trust any party, but feel betrayed and sold by all of them.
-------------------------------------

[Skybird]

FOCUS writes:
------------------
Sometimes important questions are not discussed in the German Bundestag, such as these: Are Germans under Chancellor Olaf Scholz's government still good Europeans at all? Doubts are allowed, and Scholz will also feel some of them at the European summit in Brussels.

Perhaps the Baltic states will confront the chancellor in the Belgian capital directly with their main concern, namely whether Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania can still rely on Germany to defend their freedom against the Russians.

Artis Pabriks still served as a soldier in the Soviet army, which is obviously helpful when you are Latvian defense minister. Pabriks is no longer afraid of the Russian army because of his own experiences. Nor of its nuclear weapons. He does, however, have doubts about his country's most important European ally. And Pabriks has been expressing these doubts openly for a few days now, whether at meetings in Germany or in interviews.

Pabriks now told the FAZ truly fundamental:

"More and more people are asking whether the Germans are reliable partners. Would German society be willing to give its life for our freedom? When I see how Germany, but also France and other countries, supported Ukraine in the beginning, I have my doubts."

In other words, a Western frontline state, a member of both the European Union and NATO, doubts whether the largest European state, and thus the most important ally on the Old Continent, will fulfill its obligation to exist under Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. And this is because Germany's society has become pacifist.

When the Bundestag debated European policy today, just before the European summit in Brussels, this issue did not come up. Neither did the remarks of Wolfgang Schmid, the chancellor's most important confidant.

Scholz's chancellery minister had compared the calls for the delivery of German tanks to Ukraine with the hopes Adolf Hitler placed in the supposed "wonder weapon" V 2. As if that were not enough, Schmidt also said that if Russia captured a German battle tank in Ukraine, it would be "the perfect propaganda material" for Russia - to say the country was under attack from NATO.

There is more than one problem, however:

First, the military equipment supplied does not, in principle, bear the sovereign marks of the supplying countries.
Second, even the Gepard tank already supplied by Germany can be captured by Russia.
Thirdly: What has a German Leo 2, which is used for the defense against the imperialist aggressor Russia, to do with that V 2, which the imperialist aggressor Germany under Hitler used the civilian population of for example England?

One would have liked to know from Olaf Scholz what he thinks about the statements of his most important man. One would also have liked to know whether Scholz bases the hesitant delivery of weapons, with reasons that change over time, on the fears of his confidant.

Scholz always says that Germany should not go it alone when it comes to arms deliveries. Now, however, the European Parliament has decided by a large majority that the European states, especially the "hesitant" ones, may supply Ukraine with what Ukraine demands. The vote was overwhelmingly clear: 500 (!) MEPs in favor, a full 26 against. Even social democrats like parliamentary president Katharina Barley said yes. The Chancellor also said nothing about this in his government statement on Europe today.

Olaf Scholz was also silent on the cancellation of a joint cabinet meeting with France, which was to take place next Wednesday. Berlin canceled Paris, saying that German ministers were busy elsewhere. What does this mean: Germany cancels a Franco-German ministerial meeting because the cabinet members supposedly have more important things to do than consult with the French - the French, of all people - seriously now?

Scholz also gave no information in the Bundestag, shortly before he left for Brussels, about why he had not coordinated his "double whammy," the 200 billion in energy aid, with the Europeans. Many of them are angry with the Germans right now, especially those who are less rich than Germany. They also fear that Germany is responsible for the moon prices of gas because it is currently buying up the world market with its money.

Some European countries now want to take on debt to pay for energy aid to their populations - analogous to the Corona debt that the European Union incurred. Scholz could have made clear in the Bundestag what his position was on this - the chancellor avoided any specification.

Alexander Dobrindt, head of the CSU parliamentary group, recalled that Scholz had recently spoken out in favor of European debt at the European summit of the Social Democrats. He also said that shoving boom projects into shadow budgets was not an act that would score points in Brussels.
Is the port of Hamburg becoming something like Nord Stream 2?

Finally: China. Most recently, Green Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock used the Green Party conference to issue a strategic warning. Once again, Germany must not become so dependent on a dubious state like Russia. China was meant.

The NDR now reports that Scholz wants to enable the partial purchase of the Port of Hamburg by a Chinese state-owned company; several of the traffic light ministries warned against this because it would open up a potential for blackmail - China is also a major customer at the Port of Hamburg. Does Scholz really not consider a sale of the Port of Hamburg to be a strategic dependence on China?

How to deal with China is to be one of the topics at the Euro Summit. It will be interesting to see whether there are any questions for Scholz about the port project. In any case, the matter is reminiscent of the Nordstream 2 deal, which Scholz was still selling as a "private-sector project" until the Russians invaded Ukraine.

To answer the opening question of this text: doubts about Germany as a good European have never been as great as they are today. They are greatest in Eastern Europe.

Artis Pabriks, the Latvian defense minister, demands leadership from Germany. He will have to be patient.
----------------------

[Skybird]

FOCUS writes:
------------------------

There's a fire in the coalition again. It's about China, it's about Hamburg, and this time the chancellor can no longer play the benevolent referee. Olaf Scholz is in the middle of a major conflict. He is in the China dilemma.

The planned entry of a Chinese group into a Hamburg container terminal is increasingly becoming a bone of contention in the coalition: the Greens and FDP are criticizing the project.

It's not just a dispute about the Port of Hamburg. It's not just about the question of whether the Chinese should be allowed to participate in "critical infrastructure" in Germany. It is also about a major power issue. For the first time, the Chancellor himself is at the center of a coalition dispute. That could be dangerous, in many ways.

The most recent coalition dispute took place between Christian Lindner and Robert Habeck. The chancellor was able to dissolve it by directive decision. Now the situation is different. Now it's not two of his ministers who are Olaf Scholz's problem, but: the chancellor himself is the problem.

The framework in which this coalition conflict is taking place is also problematic. For it is the domestic core of a foreign and trade policy conflict that could hardly be greater. After all, it touches on Germany's self-image because it calls into question the Federal Republic's model of prosperity.

In short, it is a question of whether Germany will continue to be the most successful European trading nation, in other words, whether it will go for "business first". Or is Germany guided by geostrategic considerations, i.e. "politics first"? The business first principle entails major political risks, the politics first principle entails major economic risks. For Scholz, this means: He is in a China dilemma.

Green Party Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock publicly warns against "business first." Baerbock's party colleague Toni Hofreiter warns against making the same mistakes in China as in Russia. Green Economy Minister Robert Habeck wants to stop China in Hamburg.

FDP campaigner Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann wants Scholz to stop "mansplaining" to potentates. FDP parliamentary group leader Dürr has already found a new formula for Germany: trade without making itself susceptible to blackmail. As if this were so simple. A chair leg in the hand of a murderer is still a chair leg, but more so a weapon.

That the two intelligence chiefs - from the Federal Intelligence Service as well as from the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution - publicly warned against the port trade with China is to be expected: "Security" is their job. But security, while eminently important, is only one aspect of this issue.

In any case: This dilemma is far greater than Scholz's Hamburg past, which is now readily pointed out. Certainly, Scholz was Hamburg's mayor for many years. It goes without saying that he knows all the players on the ground. And of course he has a close relationship with his successor, Peter Tschentscher, whom he himself chose.

And in fact, everything also somehow has to do with the SPD and its view of the world, or more precisely: its idea of trade relations and the role of politics in them. The fact that a mayor does everything he can to help his port fits in conceptually seamlessly with Olaf Scholz's industrial policy ideas on the Nordstream 2 Russian pipeline.

Even with Nordstream, Scholz had ignored the geostrategic considerations - the gas pipe's blackmail potential against Germany - and against Ukraine. This is what Scholz's (and Merkel's) formula of the "private-sector project" stood for. This was not only naive.
In the case of China, we can no longer distinguish between politics and economics.

It was an attempt to pursue what an old 68 would surely call a state-monopoly capitalist industrial policy. Against all political warnings, the Americans as well as the Eastern Europeans. "Business first" - the old German recipe for prosperity, instead of "politics first." It didn't take long, just weeks, for the old mistake to catch up with the chancellor.

The matter is complex because it is no longer possible to make a clear distinction between politics and economics: Scholz wants to travel to Beijing at the beginning of November - as the first European statesman after the CP Party Congress that crowned Xi Jinping as Communist Emperor of China. His goal: to draw Xi to the West's side against Putin's Russia. Xi is seen as the only leader who can stop Putin from escalating the Ukraine war into the nuclear realm.

But if Scholz were to personally stop the Hamburg terminal deal with China, he would hit Xi hard in the head. The reason: Under Xi's leadership, China no longer distinguishes between foreign policy and foreign trade. For the potentate, politics and trade are two sides of the same coin - foreign policy, strategic instruments of power. Xi has weaponized trade.

When Lithuania recently upgraded Taiwan diplomatically because it is a flawless democracy, Beijing, which wants to bring Taiwan home to its empire, subsequently blocked trade with Lithuania. Also affected, points out Thorsten Benner of the Berlin-based GPPI think tank (Global public policy institute), were goods from Continental in Germany. It was a warning shot - to all of Europe.

The problem: Europeans have not yet found a proper response to the new, rude practice of the Chinese under Xi's ideological leadership of turning trade into an imperialist tool. China policy is essentially made in national capitals, not in Brussels.

That's how Angela Merkel handled it, and that's how her successor is doing it. That Europe must unite to stand up to China is the slogan in Sunday speeches. When it comes to traveling on Mondays, the motto is: Germany first.

It could also go differently. In that case, Olaf Scholz would not travel to China alone, but would take Ursula von der Leyen with him. That would send a double signal, both to Germany's partners in Europe and to its rival partners in China. The Commission President's task would then be to negotiate with China on trade rules on an equal footing, or in technical jargon, a "level playing field.

Because there is a dramatic imbalance in trade between the West and China. China is steadily expanding its influence in Europe, its main instrument being the "belt-and-road initiative," a thoroughly aggressive project that hides behind a cute name: Silk Road.

And at the same time it is sealing itself off from the outside world. China's idea of globalization is national, not global: China itself wants to remain politically self-sufficient, while making others, especially Europeans, economically dependent on it.

And so far it has been successful in doing so. If Germany as a country, or a German company with state influence, or even a German company at all, wanted to participate in a Chinese port - this would be out of the question.
Is Scholz sitting out the problem?

There could be an answer to this problem, too, which a look at a map produced by the Mercator Institute for China Studies (Merics) shows: Cosco, the company that wants to buy 35 percent of Hamburg's terminal, already has stakes in quite a few European ports that compete with Hamburg - the logistics business is tough as nails. Rotterdam, Antwerp, Bilbao - Cosco holds minority stakes in these ports. The Greek port of Piraeus is 100 percent owned by Cosco.

The solution: Instead of letting the Chinese drive them through the ring and play them off against each other, the ports could also look for a joint answer to the problem that is the same for everyone. But there has been no talk of that either so far - so much for Europe.

And Scholz? Could just keep quiet. If he manages to sit the issue out until the end of October, the Chinese will get what they want. The question is whether the others will let Scholz sit it out.

-------------------------

[mapuc]

If I remember correctly you government coalition is called the traffic light
Red-Yellow-Green

Which colour does it show when it comes to:

Energy ?
Ukraine ?
EU ?
China ?

Markus

[Skybird]

The term "trafficlight" or "trafficlight coalition" (die Ampel, die Ampelkoalition) is due to the three parties' associated colours: red for the SPD, yellow for the FPD, green for the Greens. We label different other coalition by nations flags, too: "Jamaica coaliton" for example would mean CDU (black) plus FDP (yellow) plus Greens (green).

Personally I would prefer to associate parties with different species of apes: nagging capuchin monkeys, thieving long-tailed macaques, and choleric chimpanzees, for example.

In the trafficlight coalition, it nevertheless is only three different shades of "left", the trafficlight thus is technically defunct. The FDP has been pulled over the table so far, had to agree to enormous new debts althgough their promises was they would not allow that (as a reuslt their elecition result at the last state election in Lower Saxony has dived by one third of their former value, and they got kicked out of parliament: endless new debts and giving in to left demands is not what their voters elected them for). On national level they now agree to enormous new debts and try to weasel out of their accountability by calling debts not "debts", but something else, no matter what, just not "debts". By claim, the FDP ist "liberal", in reality it is as left as practically any other party in the Bundestag now, even the CDU is a left party since many years, sometimes under Merkel lefter than the SPD, to catch their voters. The Greens always were home to Maoists and Marxists, and the SPD are socalists that relate to communists like water to ice: its the same H2O, the only difference is the situative context.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The term "trafficlight" or "trafficlight coalition" (die Ampel, die Ampelkoalition) is due to the three parties' associated colours: red for the SPD, yellow for the FPD, green for the Greens. We label different other coalition by nations flags, too: "Jamaica coaliton" for example would mean CDU (black) plus FDP (yellow) plus Greens (green).

Personally I would prefer to associate parties with different species of apes: nagging capuchin monkeys, thieving long-tailed macaques, and choleric chimpanzees, for example.

In the trafficlight coalition, it nevertheless is only three different shades of "left", the trafficlight thus is technically defunct. The FDP has been pulled over the table so far, had to agree to enormous new debts althgough their promises was they would not allow that (as a reuslt their elecition result at the last state election in Lower Saxony has dived by one third of their former value, and they got kicked out of parliament: endless new debts and giving in to left demands is not what their voters elected them for). On national level they now agree to enormous new debts and try to weasel out of their accountability by calling debts not "debts", but something else, no matter what, just not "debts". By claim, the FDP ist "liberal", in reality it is as left as practically any other party in the Bundestag now, even the CDU is a left party since many years, sometimes under Merkel lefter than the SPD, to catch their voters. The Greens always were home to Maoists and Marxists, and the SPD are socalists that relate to communists like water to ice: its the same H2O, the only difference is the situative context.

Thank you Skybird-I find it interesting to follow your "description" of the Political situation in my Fathers country.
I also understand why there is such a high percentage of nichtwähler in Germany.

Markus

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Thank you Skybird-I find it interesting to follow your "description" of the Political situation in my Fathers country.

Oh!? I did not know that. Explains why you speak German.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Oh!? I did not know that. Explains why you speak German.

I knew I had a thread about my Father being member of the Hitler Jugend

https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/sho...d.php?t=217679

Markus

[Skybird]

It's a familiar motif in the horror genre: the resurrection of the dead, who set out to haunt the living, who already harassed them when they were alive. The German horror of the present has a name: the holy mother Angela, the self-appointed last authority for whatever and universal corrective authority for unpleasant and therefore retractable election results and critical books, which she did not even have to read in order to nevertheless judge how damnable the criticism of Merkel in them was... FOCUS writes:
---------------------------------
Everything known, everything seen: In terms of self-righteousness Merkel plays in the 1st league. Angela Merkel's unshakable ego: Memoirs of a divine empress

If there were a prize for self-righteousness, Angela Merkel would win it hands down. She never misses an opportunity to say how at peace she is with herself. And now comes the memoirs!

Four months ago, Angela Merkel sat in the Berlin Ensemble and said that she would only make feel-good appointments after leaving the chancellorship. That was a little mean to the reporter Alexander Osang sitting next to her, because one involuntarily wondered whether the evening of talks with him was already set up as a feel-good appointment. But one was allowed to understand her statement in such a way that she would make herself scarce in the future.

Unfortunately, she did not stick to it. Not a week goes by without the retired chancellor showing up somewhere and giving advice. At the end of September, she was at the opening ceremony of the Kohl Foundation in Berlin, where she talked about herself, Kohl and Putin. Then she gave the festive speech for the 1100th anniversary of the town of Goslar, naturally with a glance at Russia. Then, a week later, she gave the next speech, this time on the occasion of the 77th anniversary of the "Süddeutsche Zeitung", also with a view to German-Russian relations.

In between, she was in New York to accept the award of the UN Refugee Agency for her commitment to the refugee crisis, followed by an appearance in Lisbon, where she explained why she in no way regretted her decision to rely entirely on Russia for energy supplies.

Merkel intends to be right. Absolutely

Change through trade? She never believed in it. Putin as a warlord? She never had any illusions. The invasion of Ukraine? She saw it coming for a long time.

Of course, she also knows exactly how things should be done better. She advises those responsible in the government to show more leadership. For the foreign minister, she has the advice to start thinking now about how to reintegrate Russia into the European security architecture. The really remarkable thing, I would say, is that people don't fall off their chairs laughing when the 16-year chancellor speaks to them. But probably only someone who is not employed by the "Süddeutsche" can think like that.

I have written about all the German chancellors. Adenauer did not consider any of his successors as suitable as himself. Kohl's stubbornness was also legendary. Anyone who wasn't for him was against him; there was nothing in between for him. But in terms of self-righteousness, Angela Merkel is once again in a league of her own.

You can see it in her face, too. She's got this neck of people who think they've done everything right in life. The head is so tight (on the shoulders) that there's not much wiggle room left, except for a nod of self-approval.

There were warnings about Putin

Last week, "Der Spiegel" presented the result of a meritorious research on their government's attitude to Nord Stream 2. A team of editors had spent months trying to gain access to the previously secret report in which the Economics Ministry, then still led by Peter Altmaier, was supposed to assess the risks of another gas pipeline to Russia. There were warnings, especially from Eastern Europe and the USA, that Germany would become even more dependent on the Kremlin as a result of the commissioning.

The sunniest assessment, however, came from Berlin: the new pipeline would not weaken European supply security, but on the contrary increase it. Gazprom has basically no influence on the volume of gas supplied, it only ensures the transport. More pipes, more gas, more reliability - that was the conclusion four months before the outbreak of war and eight months before Putin closed the gas tap.
Everything foreseen? Everything done right?

Of the many ministers who served Angela Merkel, Peter Altmaier was always the most loyal of the loyal. He would never have dared to rebel against the boss or initiate a decision that could have made her unhappy. So his assessment can certainly be attributed to the chancellor. The point is clear: No government has made us so dependent on energy supplies from a state that is hostile to us as that of Angela Merkel. During her term in office, dependence on Russian gas has risen from 43 percent to 55 percent. But as I said, there is no need to repent.

The stupid thing is: it's not getting any better. There is a man in the chancellor's office who wants to be like his predecessor. If there is a role model for Olaf Scholz to follow, it is the woman with the self-confidence of a divine empress. When he went into the election campaign, his promise was: I'm just like Angela Merkel, only without the rhombus. People mocked him for it. But the people who would have reelected Merkel if she had been allowed to were numerous enough to propel him into the chancellorship.

Even better than being right after the fact is to have known everything beforehand. Appearance by Olaf Scholz at the mechanical engineering summit on Tuesday last week. Putin uses gas as a weapon? Quote Scholz: "I was always sure he would do that."

Gerhard Schröder, after all, could say of himself that he saw the good in Putin's reptilian eyes. By their own admission, Merkel and Scholz never entertained illusions. What should we call their behavior? They knew what Putin was capable of and still put the gas weapon in his hand and even loaded it? Blue-eyedness is therefore not an explanation. If I were their legal counsel, I would say: Be careful, a lawsuit for treason can be filed quickly. Better to plead negligence. It doesn't sound so good, but unlike intent, it saves you a lot of trouble.

Merkel is working on memoirs - the content is already foreseeable

Would admitting that you misjudged the situation make the situation we are in better? It wouldn't. But it might help prevent repeating the same mistake. Coming to terms with the past is always also precaution for the present. If you recognize where you were wrong in your assessment, you may be warned next time.

Most people think of China as a huge sales market. But if we're not careful, we'll be trading one dependency for another, especially in energy production. No other energy sources gobble up as many rare metals and earths, calculated over their life cycle, as photovoltaics and wind power. And guess where much of the metal needed to make solar panels and wind turbines comes from? It's not Europe, unfortunately, but the Middle Kingdom.

Angela Merkel is now working on her memoirs, along with her office manager Beate Baumann. "The book will provide an exclusive, personal insight into the political life and work of the former German chancellor," says the publisher's announcement from Kiepenheuer & Witsch, where the biography is scheduled to appear in fall 2024. The author can be quoted as saying, "I am pleased to reflect on central decisions and situations of my political work and to make them understandable to a broad public, also with recourse to my personal history."

You don't have to be a clairvoyant to tell what will be in the memoir. Our former chancellor is at peace with herself. Her policies were, in the truest sense of the word, without alternative. Anyone who sees it differently has grasped nothing and understood nothing. An ideal gift for masochists. But there are enough of them in Germany, too, so that at least nothing stands in the way of a nice place on the bestseller list.
---------------------------

[mapuc]

You are critical on Merkels politics.
Then you should hear one of our EU and Germany expert Lykke Friis when she is speaking about Merkel. Sometimes I get the feeling she's almost getting an orgasme.

Markus

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mapuc

You are critical on Merkels politics.

Thats an understatement. I see her as a continental political deaster of first rank. And I have seen her like that form all her chncellory beginning on. For very short time I put some hope - desperate hope in her training as a physicist, that this maybe wou,d help her top se thign srealisticlaly. That was a big mistake, although my hope was muted. Merkel is no scintiost, and has no scientific midneset. Like have studied psycholog and did my degree, but am no psychologist. Still, I have more scientific mindset in one day than Merkle in her complete 4 terms has shown.

My contempt for her has no limits, and since many, many years. Scholz is her worthy successor, thats why she supported him, ironically. Scholz had already been sorted out by his own party at that time!


I know not a signle name in German politics whom I would see as a real alternative. When i look at the names and faces from all parties, I canot help but must start to giggle hysterically.



Germany is lost, that simple it is.

[Jimbuna]

Not just Germany but also the UK and a few others.